I want to comment on your caveat about Dixon’s assumptions about his readers and his explanations falling short. When I was first reading this book, I wasn’t enjoying it, and your comment made me realize why. There was something about his introduction to the Enlightenment that seemed to move too quickly, if that makes sense. I’m thinking back in chapter one. This line is a good example from page 14:

“Another Frenchman, Descartes, abandoned all ancient knowledge and began with the simple proposition, “Cogito ergo sum” (I think therefore I am), from which he extrapolated a complicated account of the cosmos.”

“I think therefore I am” is probably the only thing I remember from Descartes from my philosophy classes when I was an undergrad, and it’s a complicated argument. I don’t believe that Dixon characterized it correctly. He doesn’t even summarize how such a key argument fits into the bigger cosmological picture for Descartes or doesn’t give readers much information about why Descartes was important in the first place. Dixon might be correct, but he doesn’t give readers the full explanation. I think most general readers would know who Newton and Galileo were, but not Descartes. Dixon’s editor should have pushed him to skip the reference to Descartes’ altogether.

It was a lot easier for me to follow Dixon when he discussed ideas and events — the Moderate Enlightenment and intellectual currents and politics in Scotland and Britain, for example – closer to Cadwallander Colden’s life. He went into more detail, and he made it clearer how the Scottish educational system, for example, influenced Colden’s choices.

Going back to your caveat, I agree that Dixon’s overviews fall short of being helpful to general readers. I’d add that elaborating more would have been helpful, especially when he makes claims, like the “Cogito ergo sum” being part of some cosmological argument, that I’m not sure add up. Thanks again for your review. It summarized the book well and helped me focus on a gripe that I hope isn’t off base.